Counter cases after winning the original false case against you(498a, etc)

(this post was originally a reply to a SIFian who posted his win in the false 498a case against him, in the SIF yahoogroup, and wanted to know how to about filing counter cases and when, etc.,.)

Dear Cruise and all,

Where did your case get "dismissed" under what Cr.PC section(s)(discharge@lowercourt-239Cr.PC, quash@highcourt-482 or aquittal(which court)-on wat grounds on benefit of doubt, lack of proof or complaint/FIR found to be false). All these factors will decide ur next strategy. Read ur judgement thoroughly, write in here. 

If its an acquittal(as I think it is) at lower court, the appeal period is 30(or 60 days, just check the books/lawyers), if its a high court order the appeal period is more(90 days I think). You can file counter cases like defamation/malicious procecution/IPC211/189 and other sections etc which are in my blog post u r reffering to, immediately after the appeal period(starting from written order got in hand, to be safe).

Now if getting a divorce is ur priority it would be better that u appeal for divorce in cruelty grounds(citing the 498a judgement) and you could get a fast divorce(say 2-3 sittings, may be u can waive of the 6 months mandatory cooling period, since there's nothing to cool down, even though recently SC has insisted that this 6 months be strictly adhered to(for what, especially in this case)). You can file for divorce right now. 

After u get a divorce, but before the "period of limitation"(and 2nd marriage, if u r planning, since that's an energy-sink for sure, u may not even have time to remember ur name sometimes!) you can file the counter cases.

"Period of limitation(PoL)"(though delays beyond PoL may be condoned, don't depend on this) varies with respect to the respective counter case sections u r planning(and have grounds for it. ie a clean judgement in which complaint is termed as false directly or indirectly), for eg. If you are planning for defamation(criminal) ie. IPC 499, the period of limitation is 2 years(since the maximum punishment for defamation is 2 years: IPC 500. Punishment for defamation.-- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.) .

Refer http://bok498a.blogspot.com/2008/07/counter-cases-during-and-after-case.html for details on counter cases.

Make a strategy, and then fire at will, don't leave without guns blazing, turn all over rage, past and present, into energy to run and win the counters(justice-counters is what I call them), this is not just for you, this is for cleaning the pond we are living in, so do well, and do it right!.

PS: Almost all scenarios of a war against 498a/ 'Legal Terrorism' journey is addressed here: http://bit.ly/faqsif , the rest we have 1000s of web resources by SIFians themselves by now(blogs/sites/forums/articles/mail-archives), get knowledgeable yourselves, don't depend on even your father, let alone your bloody lawyer.... aim to win, and leave the rest to destiny. 

PPS: In all this don't forget to enjoy life, with all your rage and frustration converted into a rightful crusade, you will be in a position to enjoy life to the fullest while being a staunch crusader... a truth-warrior.

File cases for giving dowry

In most of the 498A complaints lodged against husbands it is found that the girl's family says, " We gave X amount of dowry" added with the allegation that it was demanded. However, dowry giving is also an equal crime as per Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as much as abetting it is. Even witnesses give their statements that they saw the dowry being given.

Please remember if there is a case against you and your family for demanding and taking dowry on the basis of the statements given by complainant wife and her well-wishers, then a similar case for giving and abetting also needs to be registered against the complainant wife and her well-wishers for being parties to giving dowry and abetting its exchange.

Some key points to be noted however,

1. Filing a case for "Giving Dowry" against complainant wife and her well-wishers does not mean tacit admission of "Taking Dowry" because there is a difference between giving and taking. For taking to happen, giving is a mandatory condition but the reverse is not true. For all practical purposes the dowry could be offered by dowry givers and the people offered can reject to take it. However, in this case the crime of Dowry Giving and Abetment of Dowry giving has happened and the people involved therein need to be prosecuted for this. 

2. For the 498A cases mentioned, there is prima facie evidence available in the form of "Voluntary Confessional Admission" by the complainant wife and her well-wishers that they gave dowry.

3. Although Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 does provide immunity to the complainant against prosecution but remember, that the immunity is available only in that instance of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 under which case of "Dowry demand and taking" is running. This means that we cannot arraign the accused in the same case under section 319 of the CrPC. However, nothing stops the husband from filing a new case based on their confessional admission. And in that case the husband (complainant herein) shall be provided the immunity.

Keeping in mind all these points, all the husbands who are facing false allegations of dowry demand and dowry taking against them have a moral bound duty to get the Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition implemented in its entirety in letter and spirit.

So all dear husbands, rain on the system with complaints that you came to know that you have taken dowry only via the FIR on you and file cases for giving dowry to you as per their own admission. The society shall get back from husbands what it has given them.

Landmark judgement & precautions before file DP3

Posted by: "Sanjay Dhupar" 

Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:06 am (PDT)

Dear all ,
 
On Based upon lot of discussion with my all siffins's friend like Mr Virag , Ajay Reddy , Sukhant , Rajesh , Nitin Dixit and may more.....also some friends from judiciary , please let me note down some points for sucessfull filing DP3 to your sweet wife & cheering FIL , BIL ...so on 
 
1) Read carefully all "affidavit" which are filed against you in any cases.
2) Catch the line , in she write that "Dowary is given via her father,mother, brother so on....."
3) Dont think that above line is sufficent.
4) Keep in cool way & have patience up to cross examination in court.
5) It is the best way to do cross exam her by you not by lawyer to keep her under mental  
    tension.
6) When u cross exam her by smiling face , you should tackle on that way that she will accept all lines what she was saying about dowary given .
7) Now u are in 100 % winning position.
8) Just get the certified copies from court of crss examination
9) Now u file DP3 application to police along with certified statement of her in court and as well as "affidavit" in courts.
10) Poilice definetly do not act properly .
11) Wait for 30 days .
12) File your application to the court under 156(3) and attach supreme court citataion which i provide the link below 
http://www.sendspac e.com/file/ ompnh2

under this citaion , sc says that two FIR  can be launch on same case. If she suppose already file 498A  agianst you this citation help you.
 
So ab to haso aur keep smile & go ahead to win against this legel terrorism  
    
 
 
 
 

http://www.sendspac e.com/file/ ompnh2

Sanjay Dhupar
Ph-0751-4070523, 94253-08423

Retrospective Clause in DV - Strategy

Well guys the retrospectiveness of DV has been a controversial topic of late. And the law being silent about it, the judiciary uses it to its own whims and fancies most of the times which are biased against men. Alleged acts of violence committed prior to 26th Oct 2006, the day the devilish DV law came in effect, are made part of petition and cases are getting registered.
But retrospectiveness in law is a serious issue and allowing retrospective matters in admittance of cases can have serious implications. As technological advances follows Murphy’s rule, newer dangers are also getting exposed and newer legal provisions can also come into effect. What was legal now can be illegal later, so do we book all those persons who committed a hitherto legal, but hence illegal action deemed as offense? Rationally and logically, No.
Coming back to DV, prior to it being enacted, calling names to wives was not an offense and some husband might have called his wife with some name, either out of love and affection or in a fit of anger, which even the wife must have done. But since DV outlines it as an offense only for the husband, allowing retrospective clause in DV law, all wives can book their husbands under DV and 100 % marriages will break. So retrospective clause is not healthy from a social and a futuristic standpoint of legal consideration.
Again arguing that DV does not attract penal consequences and the same arise only when protection order is violated and that offense will not be retrospective, then it must be remembered that in first place, case should not have registered, so no protection order should have been passed. So no possibility of commission of offense if retrospective clause is not defined for DV. But since the court has allowed it, it is also an equal party to the offense and should share the penalty!!! What an absurdity?
http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=13665
Hence taking a cue from the above judgment and using the aforesaid logic, we can develop a strong petition to challenge retrospectiveness of DV and challenge any such summons under 397 CrPC and bring the case to a halt.

Also specifically,

DV Cannot be used retrospectively

1)SLP(C) No.25219 of 2004 delivered by the Honorble Supreme Court of India where in it was held Penal Statutes (Acts) which create
new offences are always Prospective

2)1993 Crl.J 2636 delivered by Honorble Allahabad High Court where in it was held the accused was acquitted for the offences
punishable u/s 304B as the dowry death took place prior to the commencement of the act 304B.

Domestic Violence Lanmark Judgements

1) Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by the Hon´ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held "It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefor e continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court".

2) I (2008) DMC 1 delivered by the Hon´ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that "" Complaint for this offence can only be filed against adult male person and further held in 3( C ) that as provided by sec 2(q)of the act, such application u/s 12 of the act can´t be filed against petitioner´s who are ladies ".

3) 2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon´ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held "as there is no claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law".

4) I (2007) DMC 1 (SC) = 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1(SC) delivered by the Hon´ble Supreme Court of India where in it was held"claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband but not to the In-laws".

Attempt to frustrate RTI Applicant with bogus replies

More recently, bureaucrats and sarkari babus have found a very unique way to hide their inactions and inefficacies in maintaining organized crime information. An RTI activist from Delhi had filed an RTI application to know the following,
1. Report of cases related to 498A with following details for each police station wise for each district of national capital territory of Delhi from 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2007.

a. FIR no /Other IPC sections included along with 498a
b. Case filed date
c. Brief summary of case
d. Complainant’s name, age, qualification, occupation,
e. Every accused names, age, qualification, residential address, occupation and sex.
f. Arrested (how many days in remand) or Anticipatory bail (session / high court)
g. Current status of the case. If trial completed then names of people got convicted and what is the conviction.
h. If a case if found false in trail or FIR stage, what action was taken against complainant, people/police who filed/helped in filing that case?

2. Statistics of 498A cases with following details in following format in zone/district wise
a. No of 498A cases filed in each zone/district, year wise from year 2005 to till date
b. Total no of 498a cases when daughter in law is alive
c. Total no of 498a cases after death of daughter in law
d. Total No of accused when daughter in law is alive
e. Total No of accused after death of daughter in law
f. Total No of people got arrested
g. Total No of people who got anticipatory bail
h. Total No of accused who are women
i. No of cases found false at FIR stage
j. No of cases found false at Trail stage
k. No of cases got convicted when daughter in law is alive
l. No of cases got convicted after death of daughter in law
m. No of people got convicted (MALE/FEMALE)
n. How many cases are filed under dowry prohibition act 3 for giving dowry

The gist of the reply that the applicant got was something like; The Ministry of Home Affairs divided the task into all the DCPs of the Delhi Region and asked them to reply separately. Each of the DCPs either presented the information in a much distorted form requiring time consuming data analysis and data collation, while others clearly stated that such information is not maintained by them per se and need to personally inspect the records for which the compensation has to be paid by the applicant to the tune of Rs. 24, 332 and Rs. 25, 224 as demanded by 2 of the DCPs which means a total of Rs. 49, 556.
This is atrocious for the following reasons:-
1) Police department is a public department, meant for public service, being funded by the tax payer’s money and RTI Act lays down guidelines for access to public information and has held the government officers accountable for the same to provide info as it is a citizen’s fundamental right. And demanding money for a task which falls within the ambit of police duty from a citizen is sheer insult and lack of recognition of a citizen’s basic rights
2) In light of the information asked, it is very clear that only the records which ought to be maintained by police are being sought for and failure of the police on part of non maintenance of such records only reflects the inefficacies of the police and the police is demanding money to cover its own follies which is nothing less than atrocious.
3) It is a well known fact that IPC 498A (Dowry harassment law) is widely misused to the tune of 98 % and the police is not only well aware of the situation, but is also hand –in – gloves to promote the misuse owing to its own corruption and with these replies, attempting to abstain from giving information and frustrating the applicant, only justifies the role of a corrupt police force in advocating this misuse.

Counter cases during and after the case against one

And here comes the mother of all 'Cracks' for this bar of 195 Cr.PC , see below the links for the landmark judgement of Marwah Vs Marwah(Citation 2005 (4) SCC 370), I have used this in my counter cases(under sections 209, 211, 195, 197, 460, 463, and whatnot, even I lost count). Download this judgement here.

See a post explaining all this: http://bok498a.blogspot.com/2007/05/arrive-with-guns-blazing-counters-quash.html , actually sit and read the whole blog as I suggested initially :), it will serve u good, take my word on it. See my case details and the killer thoughts behind planning a counter-offensive(our military bretheren must be keen on knowing these counter-surveilance mode thoughts) at http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wPl1SANrqCIhMSTl0U7w520JpBhhfMhdPUY1lvs3qyneu0J04Xsc7h2Aox4lpxErTKuroEt2HHsw2lfDZTUAAw/Counter%20Charge%20498a.pdf (also attached, this is an ealrier version so it has some factual errors, like the explanation of Cr.PC 340, is wrongly refering to that of IPC 340, will correct it soon and re-upload/blog for posterity)

For Dowry Prohibition section, 3(giving dowry being punishable) please see the following links


Nyayayodha's blog

Following is the link for section for tortured husbands(needs you to register in this site and be logged in) :-

http://www.ghrs.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=21&id=35&Itemid=117

Following is the link to Sample DP3 application :

http://www.ghrs.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=154

******
Hi Gokul ji,

I was just reading CrPC-Section 195 and it says that

"No court shall take cognizance - Of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court"

Thanks & Regards
Jaspreet Singh

On 7/10/08, Gokul P.R wrote:
I am mentioning below some IPC sections which can be generally used to file cases against the wife's side. The is RIPE NOW, GO FOR IT. When u r planning for counter offenses, read the posts in http://bok498a.blogspot.com/ which gives u pragmatic insights to dealing with court system, advocates and the Police, theory may not work, but insights coupled with consultations will.

S.191 :Giving false evidence+ S.340(1) of CrPC for Perjury @ Family/Magistrate Court
matter
S.209 : Dishonest claim
S.211 : False charge of offence made with intent to injure
S.306 : Abetment of Suicide
S.361 : For child - Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
S.378,380,381,382 :Theft
S.383 : Extortion
S.402 : Dacoity (Cognisable, Non-bailable and Non-compundable- just like 498a :)
S.406 : Criminal Breach of Trust
S.463 : Forgery
S.499: Defamation
S.506&507: Criminal Intimidation
Sections which u can check with ur advocate(I dont remember the IPC section offhand for these crimes) - Threatening, Abbetment of crime, these may be referring to a period before even your wife filed cases against you.

Some other sections of IPC helpful for husband side:
182 False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person
191 Giving false evidence
192 Fabricating false evidence
195A Threatening any person to
give false evidence
196 Using evidence known to be false
197 Issuing or signing false certificate
198 Using as true a certificate known to be false
199 False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence
200 Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false
201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information to screen offender
202 Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform
203 Giving false information respecting an offence commited
204 destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence
205 False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution there are
more


Regards
Gokul

Buddy Aa wrote: Hello All,

i am working in Indian Army and my brother has been harassed by 498a .

After getting b-report/final report in the charge sheet can put
counter cases like miss use of 498a ...?

1. Is this right time (after B-Report) to put counter cases of miss
use of 498a? or its too late now ?

2. Defamation case ?

3.182 IPC ?

Please list all the counter cases for 498a and relevent cases .

Also I would like to know all these counter cases are civil/criminal ?
Please give me some more details how register all these cases and
what needs to prepared ,i don't want to put any false cases and then put myself in trouble......if any one has done this please share
experiences. .....etc

I don't want to teach a lesson to 498a wife, I would like to seek for
justice and fair for my brother who have been legally terrorised by 498a
and 498a wife.....Etc

Please send me the quite capable with very good reputation advocate in Hyderabad.

Please help

regards,
Buddy

Post-498a Scenario: When passport is feared of being seized, and person anticipates detention for an unreasonable time

If the husband(or the victim family) is working abroad, and is facing a high profile opponent who is legally terrorising them, with the girl's side having a lot of political or other influence, and has a lot of clout in the system. The bail may be opposed strongly, or after bail they may have to attend police station at frequent interwels or at the will of the police- this itself is a worry- but an application to relax the bail conditions could be the remedy).


The main problems are whether the bail would be denied or whether the passport will be impounded/seized and they will be kept remanded for an unreasonable time(there by affecting ones job) with influence and money power.

See how Mr.Rao had got the passport released from HC andhra(see details in message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saveindianfamily/message/19156 ). One could also try emailing Mr.Rao email: rao257 (at) yahoo.com.

But in these kind of cases the real trouble is with the influence and power of the girls side, and to nuetralise the potency of the girl's side influence, one has try and submit petitions(to Authorities right from PM, President to MP,MLA, political party local presidents & other important office holders, similarly with the police authorities from IG to SHO(Station's Senior inspector, clearly mention the police station and Court where ur case is going on in your petitions)) mentioning the boys apprehensions of being detained for an unreasonable time in india with his passport also not being given back, there by affecting/losing his job abroad, etc. etc.

The effect of this kind of petition is not because all those higher officials and authorities care a damn, but that the Station Senior inspector, other police officers involved in the case and DCP of the zone, and the Magistrate(put a copy to the magistrate too, ask your advocate about this) will think twice about yielding to the influence of the girl's side.

But one may have reservations about this strategy, since both the families could have a lot of common friends and 'biradri' folks between them- but what better to do , in this case(or for that matter any other), other than to fight out fully.

This is exactly the same strategy which saved many victims(this was actually advised by a high ranking police officer, so do understand that this is a time-tested and sure-fire strategy)- as this has worked out in the boys favour in cases where the girls side were putting a lot of pressure right from delhi to the local congress committee, etc.- but they are all free and hitting back at the girls side now

The son can avoid coming to India and just be where he is, but the parents Passports also could be seized, and hence they cant visit their son + this 498a case will never be closed until the son comes and faces the legal procedures. Better fight now, sooner or later u will have to either do it or submit to the oppression- this is our frank opinion.

Some references, coutsey to the respective sources(not plaigerism, just info dissemination)

1) http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/sc-judgment-maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india-1978/ ->

SC Judgment: Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India (1978)Published April 12th, 2007 :

This will be useful to those of you hounded by a Red Corner Alert or threats of Passport impoundment.
The SC intrepreted this as a case for due process. The article from the Hindu is given below:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=5154

The SC kept the passport, but she was given a hearing.
A warning! It is a 144 page judgment.